Against Sola Scriptura

 The first in depth look we'll be taking is Sola Scriptura - or Scripture Alone.

 

First, a few definitions from various sources.

"Sola scriptura, meaning by scripture alone, is a Christian theological doctrine held by most Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions of Protestantism,[1] that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.[1]" (Sola Scriptura - Wikipedia)

"The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16)." (What is sola scriptura - Got Questions)

"The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that “scientific truth,” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the Apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our senses (2 Peter 1:19). Therefore, Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter on which it speaks." (What Does Sola Scriptura Mean? - Ligonier)

"Firstly, sola scriptura meant Scripture was the supreme authority over the church. It did not mean Scripture was the only authority. Luther, Calvin, and the other reformers used other authorities like reason and tradition. They developed arguments using logic (reason) and learned from the writings of past Christians (tradition) as they explored the Bible. Yet the Bible was the supreme authority that ruled reason and tradition because Scripture alone was infallible precisely because it is God’s word. All other authorities (including church leadership) were fallible and must submit to Scripture. As Heinrich Bullinger said: “As God’s word is confirmed by no human authority, so no human power is able to weaken its strength”.[1]" (The Real Meaning of Sola Scriptura - The Gospel Coalition)

Growing up, I may have mentioned elsewhere on my blog, I was taught that the Bible was the sole authority for doctrine and theology. When I would ask about other denominations that might believe something like paedo baptism, or the real presence of the Eucharist, I was told those denominations were either closet Catholics, or reading their Bibles wrong. That they were closet Catholics was the case for Lutherans and Episcopalians. That they read their Bible wrong was pretty much for any low church, non liturgical denominations.

We can see the beginnings of Sola Scriptura as early as the 14th century where a few people held to the view of scripture being the final authority like we see with Protestants today (Wikipedia). Martin Luther started his reformation to counter abuses he saw in the Roman Church,

Martin Luther, 16th-century monk and figurehead of the Protestant Reformation, stated that "a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it". The intention of the Reformation was thus to correct what he asserted to be the errors of the Catholic Church, by appealing to the uniqueness of the Bible's textual authority. Catholic doctrine is based on sacred tradition, as well as scripture. Sola scriptura rejected the assertion that infallible authority was given to the magisterium to interpret both Scripture and tradition.[7] (Wikipedia)

This was not a new idea, as noted above, but it seems it was the catalyst for a whole movement.

At the end of the second quote up above, you'll see a quote from 2 Timothy that is used often to prove Sola Scriptura. If one were to click on that link to the source they would see a few other scriptures used as well. I've included another quote below as well,

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. However, this is only true in the shallowest sense. The principle is strongly indicated by verses such as Acts 17:11, which commends the Bereans for testing doctrine—taught by an apostle, no less—to the written Word. Sola scriptura is all-but-explicitly indicated in 1 Corinthians 4:6, where Paul warns not to “go beyond what is written.” Jesus Himself criticized those who allowed traditions to override the explicit commands of God in Mark 7:6–9. (Got Questions)

Notice that the author of the quoted article mentions the Bereans and how they were commended for "testing doctrine... to the written Word." The problem with using this verse to prove Sola Scriptura is that the Book of Acts - according to many sources (Reasonable Theology, Bible Study Tools) Acts was written around AD 60 or maybe just a bit later, while according to Wikipedia is was written around AD 80-100. The reason that I point these dates out is that Acts most likely wasn't considered scripture at this time - and Acts most certainly wasn't considered scripture to the Jews (Bereans) mentioned in Acts 17.

According to Bible Study Tools and Wikipedia the Epistle of St. James was probably the earliest written book of the New Testament. It was probably written around AD 50 - so around the time of the Council of Jerusalem that was written about in Acts 15. This means that the Bereans could not have been searching any of the New Testament books to test doctrine against - they had not yet been written.

So we can not use Acts 17:11 as a proof for Sola Scriptura unless we only include the Hebrew canon of the time.

Likewise, we cannot use 2 Timothy as proof for Sola Scriptura which was likewise written around AD 60 - possibly later - unless we hold the view that St. Paul knew that he was writing scripture at the time, and not making a reference to the Hebrew canon at the time. We cannot infer from the scriptures that St. Paul thought that he was writing scripture.

If we look further down in 1 Corinthians 4 we see that St. Paul was talking about his own writings, and that he was writing for correction,

14I don’t write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children.15For though you have ten thousand tutors in Christ, you don’t have many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, I became your father through the Good News.16I beg you therefore, be imitators of me.17Because of this I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every assembly.18Now some are puffed up, as though I were not coming to you.19But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord is willing. And I will know, not the word of those who are puffed up, but the power.20For God’s Kingdom is not in word, but in power.21What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness?

We see that St. Paul is sending St. Timothy to be with the Corinthians to teach them, 1 Corinthians was possibly written around AD 57, or earlier, and other than some other Pauline epistles and the Epistle of St. James there were no other New Testament writings floating around. St. Paul is very clearly stating that the Corinthians should not go beyond what he was writing to them, and that he was sending St. Timothy as a teacher - and he would later be coming to teach them. Considering that there were scant few writings that would later become a part of the New Testament, it stands to reason that St. Paul would be teaching them things apart from scripture.

In Mark chapter 7 we see that Christ is not condemning Tradition, but tradition that goes against the commandments of God. He says in verses 9-13,

9And he said unto them, Full well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.10For Moses said, Honor your father and your mother; and, Whoever curses father or mother, let him die the death:11But you say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift devoted to God, whatsoever you might have received from me; he shall be free.12And you allow him no more to do anything for his father or his mother;13Making the word of God of no effect through your tradition, which you have delivered: and many such things do you.

Again, He is not against Tradition, but against that which would be used to supersede the commandments of God.

Furthermore, the 27 books that we include in the New Testament were not always all considered to be scripture. In AD 367 St. Athanasius first compiled the 27 books we know today as the New Testament, before then various books were either included or excluded - such as the Epistle of Barnabas. (Athanasius - Wikipedia) So before the 4th century AD which scripture should we have been following solely?

If the Church did follow Sola Scriptura we would find ourselves quickly at odds with the scriptures we have compiled today: "15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2 Thessalonians 2:15 KJV). St. Paul is clearly telling us, in his writing to hold fast to the traditions passed on to us by word (oral) or by epistle (letters). He is saying to hold fast to Apostolic Tradition. If we say that St. Paul knew that he was writing scripture at the time, then it is very obvious that he is telling us not to follow Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is self defeating.

If Sola Scriptura is not self defeating then we have to ask the question of whose scripture?

The Orthodox Church uses the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament with the Torah dating to the mid 3rd century BC and the rest (including the deuterocanon) sometime in the 2nd century BC (Septuagint - Wikipedia). According to Wikipedia,

"It is unclear to what extent Alexandrian Jews accepted the authority of the Septuagint. Manuscripts of the Septuagint have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and were thought to have been in use among various Jewish sects at the time.[54]

Several factors led most Jews to abandon the Septuagint around the second century CE. The earliest gentile Christians used the Septuagint out of necessity, since it was the only Greek version of the Bible and most (if not all) of these early non-Jewish Christians could not read Hebrew. The association of the Septuagint with a rival religion may have made it suspect in the eyes of the newer generation of Jews and Jewish scholars.[31] Jews instead used Hebrew or Aramaic Targum manuscripts later compiled by the Masoretes and authoritative Aramaic translations, such as those of Onkelos and Rabbi Yonathan ben Uziel.[55]

Perhaps most significant for the Septuagint, as distinct from other Greek versions, was that the Septuagint began to lose Jewish sanction after differences between it and contemporary Hebrew scriptures were discovered. Even Greek-speaking Jews tended to prefer other Jewish versions in Greek (such as the translation by Aquila), which seemed to be more concordant with contemporary Hebrew texts.[31]" (Septuagint)

We see that it is posited that the early Gentile Christians used the Septuagint because they could not read Hebrew. By the Second Century AD the Septuagint was falling out of use among the Jews. We can also see that there were various Jewish sects and they had various canons.

There are various quotes from the Septuagint in the New Testament. Most notably, I believe, is when Jesus quotes from Isaiah He is using the Greek text over the Hebrew text. This shows that the authors - and Jesus - at the very least considered the Greek text to be somewhat authoritative if not out right canonical. And as the quote above shows, the earliest Gentile Christians used the Greek text.

It would also seem likely that the Jewish canon was not closed at this point as we see that the Septuagint was falling out of use among the Jews - including the use of the deutercanon. There is also the,

"...numerous quotations and allusions to the books of the Jewish canon which appear in the New Testament cannot be distinguished from the numerous quotations and allusions Jewish scripture outside of the canon. Similarly, references by the by the early writers of the Christian churches, both East and West, do not neatly distinguish between the works of the Jewish canon and other Jewish scriptures. The books now called 'deuterocanonical' by the Roman Catholics and 'apocryphal' by Protestants were in the early Church employed in ways indistinguishable from the books included in the Jewish canon. Thus the Jewish canon appears to not have been closed in the days of the New Testament writers."(Hahneman, 1992)

So, if the Jewish canon was not yet closed - as it was still being debated by the Pharisees in the 2nd Century AD (Development of the Hebrew Bible canon - Wikipedia) - then which scripture should we consider to be our sole authority? Just what was written and considered canonical up to the date of composition of 2 Timothy only by the Jews? Or what was written and considered canonical up to the date of composition of 2 Timothy by the Christians? If the former, which sect's canon, and why include the New Testament at all? If the latter, then why have the current 27 books in the New Testament?

The fact of the matter is that the Bible - aside from the table of contents - does not tells us what should be contained in the Bible. The Bible that the majority of Sola Scriptura Protestants are familiar with was complied by other men using traditions to do so. The fact of the matter is that we did not have a Bible like we do in these modern times for centuries after the death of Christ. The fact of the matter is that the Tradition and the authority of the Early Church is what gave us the books from which the Protestants try to use to do away with Tradition and authority.

It is not the Bible that is the Pillar of Truth, but the Church (1 Timothy 3:15). Now, the typical argument from Protestants is the the Church means the body of believers as a whole, and not some magisterium like the Roman Catholic Church or an entity like the Eastern Orthodox Church - however, this argument falls apart when it is pointed out the very many different denominations that believe many different things. Above, I mentioned that there are those Protestant groups that practice paedo baptism, or believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, so obviously, there are those denominations that do not believe or practice those things. There are even the more "progressive" denominations that say that homosexuality is not a sin, or that allow priestesses.

If the Church is just the body of believers as a whole then which group of believers is right? It cannot be every group of believers (denominations) as there are such widely diverse beliefs among them. If the answer is the group which most closely follows the Bible, then the next question is why then do these groups which claim to so closely follow the Bible differ so much? So either all of the groups are right, or all of the groups are wrong. Unless, of course, one were to recognize that the Church is not just the body of believers, but also an entity with some authority to decide what is and what is not scripture.

Now, if we are to say that the Church was originally wrong in the canon of scripture - or this or that doctrine, and it wasn't discovered until the Reformers some 14-1500 years later, then the Church was not the pillar and foundation of truth. This then negates what the Bible teaches us, which then means that we cannot use the Bible as the sole infallible authority for all doctrine.

It should be noted, that John Wycliffe, who translated the Bible into English (or had help doing so), also headed a "proto-Protestant" or pre-Reformation group known as the Lollards who held to a view of Sola Scriptura. When Wycliffe translated his Bible it included the deuterocanon. Even Luther in his German translation almost 200 years later kept the deuterocanon (relegated to the back of the Old Testament), however he did not believe them to be "equal to the Holy Scriptures". The King James Version also originally included the deuterocanon. For the majority of Christian history the deuterocanon were included as scripture and we can see that they were thought so by the Synod of Hippo and the Council of Carthage in the 4th century AD. These synods and councils did not just arbitrarily designate the canon, but they were building upon established tradition from earlier sources. The modern translators also relied on established tradition when they used the Masoretic text and the Jewish canon - the Masoretic text comes from the 7th to 11th centuries AD (Masoretic Text - Wikipedia)

We can see that the Bible itself is not an authority on what the Bible should include - even among the Protestants who reject the deuterocanon they are relying on a tradition of what someone else thinks should be included. St. Paul, as I mentioned above, tells us to hold fast to Apostolic Tradition - and we can trace this Apostolic Tradition from the Apostles (from which the name implies) to now by reading the works of the Apostles (the New Testament) and their successors. One of the successors to the Apostles - St. Ignatius of Antioch - rejects Sola Scriptura, as I mentioned in a previous blog post.

The truth of the matter is that Scripture goes hand in hand with the Apostolic Tradition, since it is from that Tradition that we get the Scripture

Now, one must decide which Church is the correct Church. As in, which entity that has compiled a biblical canon is the one that had the actual authority to do so. Which Church held true to Apostolic Tradition. If it was neither the Eastern Orthodox, nor the Romans, we have to figure out how there was no pillar and foundation of truth for some 14-1500 years after the death of Christ. If it was the Eastern Orthodox, or the Romans, then why not use the full canon that they use?

One cannot say that the Real Church was underground ala the Trail of Blood - as I mentioned in my post on St. Ignatius, the groups that are claimed to have been the Real Church and heavily persecuted by the evil, pagan influenced, Church of Rome included known heretics - such as Montanists (who recognized women priests and bishops), Paulicians (who said that an evil God was currently the ruler of this world, and that Jesus never actually became man), and the Albigenses (aka Cathars - who were dualists like the Paulicians, gnostic, denied the Trinity and the incarnation).

If these sects were somehow the Real Church, and Sola Scriptura is a thing, then why do the Protestants who claim descent from these sects not use their canon? The Paulicians kept the 4 Gospels, the Epistles of St. Paul, the Epistles of Sts. John, James and Jude, added the Epistle to the Laodiceans, rejected the First Epistle of St. Peter and the whole of the Old Testament. The Cathars kept the New Testament, added a few other texts (gnostic and psuedographical), and rejected the Old Testament as being written by Satan.

So, Protestants cannot actually claim Sola Scriptura since:

• 1. There are various Protestant denominations proclaiming Sola Scriptura, but have different doctrines that are at odds with each other: paedo baptism vs only a believer's baptism, women clergy vs male only clergy, homosexuality is a sin vs homosexuality is not a sin, Real Presence in the Eucharist vs purely symbolic communion, etc.

• 2. Their canon of scripture comes not from what the Apostles (and their Tradition - of which the holding to is taught in scripture) thought was scripture, but rather what others thought should be scripture, meaning they are accepting the authority of something other than scripture to base doctrine off of: use of the Greek text and canon by Jesus, the Apostles, and the successor to the Apostles vs use of the Hebrew canon and a later Hebrew text.

• 3. And the insistence by specific groups (so this does not apply to all Protestants) that they came from certain groups (deemed heretical by the successors to the Apostles, and even opposed to by doctrine found in the agreed upon canon of the various churches) and the refusal by those Protestant groups to use the canon established by the supposed "underground" churches.

Therefore, Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine made by man.

Please, pray for me, a sinner.